From mouse@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA Tue Nov 23 12:06:10 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:06:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=rOZqLyJayOGXTV6pMYL2LwLKW7AnMWbiKw5O3pcKrTN) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CWgvR-0000DV-Ot for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:06:10 -0800 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14329; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:06:05 -0500 (EST) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200411232006.PAA14329@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:22:48 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: mi'e cmalu tcatipax noi tordu je plana In-Reply-To: <200411231632.iANGW4IP015504@mole.e-mol.com> References: <20041115002529.GY22035@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <200411231632.iANGW4IP015504@mole.e-mol.com> X-archive-position: 882 X-Approved-By: mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners Let's see how close I can come to this. I'll probably make plenty of mistakes, but that's how we learn, right? > mi'e cmalu tcatipax self-introduction small-kind-of-(tea-kind-of-pot) (okay, it's fairly clear what the rest of it will mean without even bothering to look at it :), but to continue...) > noi tordu je plana which-is something-which-is-short afterthought-and something-which-is-plump > i ti pemi veljai I'm not sure whether this is this-here which-is me is-that-at-which-something-is-grasped or this-here which-is that-which-grasps-at-locus-me though neither one is what is clearly intended. Is "i ti veljai mi" more nearly correct? Does this call for a construct with ke'a? Or am I just plain confused? > i ti pemi tubnu Similar remarks apply here; it seems to be saying either this-here which-is me is-a-tube or this-here which-is the-material-of-which-I-am-a-tube and it looks to me as though "i ti tubnu pe mi" is closer. > i fau jaurgapci And in-the-envent-of water-vapour is clearly what this is intended to be. But wouldn't that be jaugapci? > tirna lo siclu is-heard that-which-really-is that-which-whistles > i ko carna je rinci mi and make-it-so-that something-is-turned afterthought-and something drains from-me Here, the ko is clearly intended to apply to the whole of the next four words, not just the part before je; is that how je works? If so, how would you say "make this relation true - oh, and, this other relation is true"? /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B